Back in 2018, a mere eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
